Distinguishing inside the political dialogue

THE EDITOR: People often use the phrase "Westminster system" without clarifying what they mean. Sometimes it is a sort of pejorative and sometimes hinted at as a determinant.

As a pejorative it shies away from the supremacy of Parliament and the doctrines of elected responsibility. As a determinant it is used to suggest the supposed absolute power of the Prime Minster; the supposed ceremonial position of the President; the quiet allying to the English monarchy collectivity, unforced but solid; and even the supposed primacy of the Masonic milieu.

Even when there is acknowledgment of these constituents, they are left in a muddle.

It should be obvious to any clear-minded person that the pejorative side is actually a good and the determinant side cannot serve the national interest properly. Also obvious: that the determinants were all superseded by independence and the Republican Constitution. These are not just insights, of course.

The present government regime, following its own type of bias to the "Westminster system" – with and without saying so – has turned the economy on its head and tries to use a two-seat majority to side-step the Constitution. What this is saying is that whether or not the phrase "Westminster system" is in play, political development remains oppressed by narrowing prejudices and intellectual flaying.

The constant talk of constitutional reform, never addressing true constitution specifics rightly but always appearing out of the blue and especially at the time of the nomination for president, only adds to babble. We have to grasp better, still after 60 years, that the Constitution, which never mentions "Westminster system," constitutionally emplaces its own guiding principles.

E GALY

via e-mail